The discourse of war: encratic and acratic discourses, the discourse of the leader, apophatic and performative discourse

• Kirsanova L.I.

  Kirsanova L.I., Vladivostok State University of Economics and Service. Vladivostok. Russia

• Korotina O.A. Far Eastern Federal University. Vladivostok. Russia

The authors are researching not the question what the war is but the actor pf speech and the language of war. A distinction must be made between encratic and acratic languages. The encratic language is essentially the language messages, voice exchanges among political elites, diplomats, title and dependent nations and classes. The acratic language is similar to professional jargon, for instance, the languages of dependent and opressed nations are acratic. The language of warriors adjoins to them, which is understandable and sharable only to those who took part in a war. The speech of the leader plays a key role in collecting of the language of war and bringing it to the ideological and political unity. The voice of the leader (Mussolini, Hitler) and the letter of the leader are different. One of them speaks, inspires, impacts on emotions while the other one is based on fear and mystery of the letter, on the dependence of the Russian on the official paper, report, protocol. Uncertainty of the source of the writing, its hidden and sacral nature includes the fuction to be mobilized militarily, drawing upon fear. Either way the mobilization speech remains an unan-
swered call, the mass remains the body outside the speech.  The third register of speech on war is the difference between performative and apophatic discourses. The apophatic language of the war notifies, states and informs while the performative one commands in forms of orders, appeals, etc. The apophatic language is more complicated and ambigous, it functions in the fields of science and philosophy.  The performative language is as simple and straightforward as the language of the poster, cartoons or leaflets. As the language of war progresses to bitterness and hatred it becomes more acratic, dependent and even obsessed with the speeches of the leaders as well as the language of commands, a will for implemenation, thus it becomes more perfomative.

Keywords: the language of war, encratic and acratic language, the voice of the leader, the let-
ter of the leader, apophatic and performative discourse.